Can we now bury the myth of Camelot?
The Kennedy Family in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts in 1948 (JFK Library and Museum)
With the passing of Ted Kennedy, what now becomes of Camelot?
Next to FDR, JFK has always been the most sacrosanct and beloved institutional icon of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. But, there are some unpleasant truths about the Camelot myth that Democrats and members of the press have long ignored.
While many journalists remain fixated on the myth of Camelot, the number of households with a picture of the Pope side by side with that of JFK is rapidly diminishing; a whole new generation of American voters are coming into the fold born well after the memories of Jackie and JFK and the painful rememberance of Dallas who must be wondering what all the fuss is about. Yet still the media feels obligated to perpetuate the myth, engaging in the painful longing for a time long past.
The gap between the myth of Camelot and the reality has become too wide to reconcile. JFK, the staunch cold-warrior defender of freedom, wouldn’t recognize nor approve of today’s Democratic Party. His grandchildren, like his party, have lurched inexorably leftward. Modern day pretenders to his throne share only the smile and the handshake, not his political convictions.
But, as daughter Caroline’s disastrous encounter with the press during her brief foray into politics demonstrated, with too many of the modern day Kennedys, there is no “there” there. JFK, and for that matter, Bobby, were both men of intelligence and substance. JFK had a distinguished war record as well as both Congressional and Senatorial terms under his belt long before his elevation to the presidency. As keepers of the flame, too many of his offspring, bereft of genuine accomplishments, rely only on the family name.
For members of the Democratic Party who continue to pine for days gone by, nothing could be more incongruous, than the transparent attempt by members of the media to resuscitate the Camelot myth by pretending that Barack Obama is the new keeper of the flame. The torch has indeed been passed but the flame was extinguished long ago. And, by virute of his intellectual compass, his somewaht cloistered background and experience, Barack Obama is incapable of ever relighting it. Yes, like JFK, Obama exudes youth, intelligence and charisma, but the similarites end there.
For purposes of comparison, reading a speech written by another from a teleprompter is not the same as being a great speaker. Reciting lines from this device to an audience is far different than speaking extemporaneously off the cuff at campaign stops and during interviews with the press.
In this regard, contrast Obama’s frequent fumbling with the performance of JFK, to whom he is constantly compared. JFK was a great and natural extemporaneous speaker. His press conferences and impromptu speeches demonstrated his wit, humor and rhetorical fluency. Although they both used the same speechwriter (Theodore Sorensen), the comparison ends there.
Obama’s Berlin speech was a curious admixture of mixed and inappropriate metaphors, New Age mumbo-jumbo and pure solipsism, rhetorically delivered, as if the world were hanging on his every word. The mention of Obama’s speech in Berlin in the same breath as Kennedy’s ” Ich Bin Ein Berliner” peroration is ludicrous; one was an exercise in self-love, the other, an oration of significance and historical moment. In this regard, the attempt by the press to pump-up Obama as the reincarnation of JFK, is quite simply, laughable.
Barack Obama can never be the keeper of the flame of Camelot because he can never truly inspire us. When it comes to enlisting us in a call to national greatness his message, as evidenced by his serial apologizing while overseas, is too often one of atonement. He is incapable of rousing and inciting us to greatness because he is a prisoner of his ideological prism that at root, focuses far too often on our shortcomings and not enough on our national virtues.
Kennedy inspired a generation of young people with his call to land a man on the moon, to answer the call of freedom, and to answer the noble call to better themselves, better the world and serve their nation honorably, by enlisting in the Peace Corps. The nation answered JFK’s clarion call because it was more than a mere desire for an expansion of the Welfare State. It was a call for personal sacrifice and responsibility.
Modern day liberalism, of which Obama is a prophet, is incapable of similarly inspiring the nation because, it has devolved, since the death of JFK, into nothing more than a gospel of redistribution and entitlement.
There will be no call under Obama for a New Frontier, for in essence, stripped bare of all the misleading rhetoric, his plea is for us to aspire to be more like Europeans.
For members of the media, the Camelot myth was always inextricably bound up with their fervent wishes for a resurgence of liberalism. As the country has become more conservative, and with the death of the liberal lion, the attempt to relive a past long gone resonates only with a few of the remaining true believers.
The attempt by the media to anoint Barack Obama as the keeper of the Camelot flame is as discordant as it is futile. The death of Ted Kennedy raises a provocative question: can the Democratic Party and their handmaidens in the press finally bury the myth of Camelot and at long last move on?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Ted Kennedy dies: Kennedy brothers’ greatest speeches on YouTube (telegraph.co.uk)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“With the passing of Ted Kennedy, what now becomes of Camelot?”
We lay it down and put it to sleep like the fairy tale it was, is, and always will be.
I am sorry but what the hell is your point?
A myth doesn’t depend on facts that is why it is a myth and Camelot it won’t die anymore than the myth of Reagan that has become both a fairy tale and an iconic symbol of conservationism.
It should be noted that Obama spoke more to Reagan than he did to JFK (the great communicator also depended on the teleprompter) nor did Obama ever make the comparison to JFK or encourage any comparison. Plus today is not about Obama or JFK.
I think you just searched around for some way to slam Obama on a day that the rest of us are reflecting on a family the defined public service. And that is your snide contribution to the memory of a consistent foe to your cause.
Be honest with your headings it should have read, the last Kennedy is dead and I still hate Obama.
Mr. Kinsellagh,
I am more than willing to agree that Camelot was more about memory than reality, more about us rather than him. He oversaw a country that was at peace, had wide spread prosperity with large numbers of paying blue collar jobs, where social change might come peacefully, and a bright future of seemed just within reach if we tried hard enough to grasp it. He was the last president before the Vietnam War, the string of assassinations, and urban uprisings the seemed to mark some new dark age of US history (rather like the fictional role King Arthur is portrayed as having in western European literature). Some look back a think that if only he had lived all of that might have been avoided and the US would be a better place than it turned out. That is certainly a myth.
Having said all of that, I do not understand the point of your posting. You wrote that there is a huge gap between the reality of the JFK presidency and the myth of Camelot but you do not explain what you think that was.
At first I thought your point was the JFK was not really the great leader that many think he was, just a young and charismatic man long on style but short on substance. Then you seem to say that he was indeed great leader but his Democratic decedents are unworthy of his heritage. In particular, you seem to mean that Mr. Obama is no JFK and that JFK was not really a liberal Democrat but a conservative Republican, or would have been had he lived long enough.
Maybe you are right but you provide no evidence one way or the other. The best you can offer is that JFK was a better speaker than Mr. Obama and had greater public confidence than his daughter. Be that as it may it does not prove either that JFK was or was not a great leader or “really” a conservative or “really” a liberal.
What is it you are trying say?
You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said nor intimated that JFK was a great leader or a “conservative Republican”, only that he wouldn’t recognize, nor given the policies he pursued and advocated during his presidency, subscribe to the belief system of today’s Democratic Party.
Do you think any of his descendants are worth of his heritage?
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Kinsellagh,
I apologize if you thought that I was putting words into your mouth. I was merely trying to figure out what you were actually saying, it was not clear. Those ideas were what seemed to fit your words as best as I could tell. So if I understand your point it is…
“JFK …wouldn’t recognize, nor given the policies he pursued and advocated during his presidency, subscribe to the belief system of today’s Democratic Party.”
OK, fair enough but what specific policies would he oppose and what evidence do you have that he would oppose them? He was in favor giving non-whites in this country full civil rights and was in favor helping the poor raise above their circumstances. Those are still general objectives the current Democratic Party supports. Would he support full civil rights for gays? It is hard to say since he died in 1963 when the entire concept was both unknown and inconceivable to most people. I am sure in 1963 Edward Kennedy would not have supported gay rights. However times and minds change, the late senior Senator from Massachusetts most likely changed his mind on the topic, he supported full civil rights for gays. as did his sister. While I will grant you that if you had asked JFK in October 1963 what he thought at that time of various positions that the Democratic Party he may or may not have supported them. However, had he lived to August 2009, it is entirely possible, even likely, that – being a man with an open mind, a sense of justice, and a effective political instinct – he would be quite happy with where his party ended up.
What I would ask you is what evidence do you have that, had JFK lived to this day, that he would have been unhappy with the Democratic Party’s positions.
In response to another comment. See in context »The piece is really creepy, but then again you repugs have become a creepy lot. Can’t you at least wait for the body to be cold?
I don’t think that because a person doesn’t share your exact list of ideals or idolize whom you idolize, you should immediately begin denigrating them as “repugs” or whatever the word of the day is.
Down, boy. Heel.
It’s people who have that “Us vs. Them” attitude that has turned American politics into the two-ringed, name-calling circus that it is. It’s no wonder that a growing number of Americans are beginning to turn away from the two “major” parties, if the best they can muster is a two-way name calling contest that reverses itself every four or eight years.
Grow up.
I, for one, am damned glad to see Kennedy – a lifelong, fourth-generation, career politician – finally gone. For over four decades, that womanizing alcoholic has been suckling at the public teat.
What great things has he ever given us? What did Ted Kennedy ever do that was so grand?
The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 – consisting of amnesty for countless thousands of illegal aliens already in the country – which paved the way for wave after wave of illegal immigrants to enter our country in the decades since. He’s since crafted and introduced numerous bills that would even further expand legal and illegal immigration.
He voted for the Iraq war.
He voted against making English the official language of the U.S. every time it’s ever come up.
He killed a woman in a drunk-driving accident, got away scott-free, and never served a day in the slammer.
This is the object of your hero worship? You dare call someone names because they refuse to deify a person like that?
You got some nerve, pal.
In response to another comment. See in context »Uncertain:
Talk about down boy, heel. I would agree with you that the us vs. them mentality is bad for the country, but that was not something that came from Ted Kennedy or democrats, it is in fact a Newt Gingrich and far right creation and as one who became a victim of this mind set I do admit to being a bit peeved at its effect on debate in the country. Also the immigration act of 1965 had nothing to do with amnesty but to correct the ethnocentric policy of favoring European immigrants over those from the East. It allowed more people from Korea, Taiwan and Japan to become part of America. The immigration act of 1986 is the one with amnesty that was Ronald Reagan’s doing not Kennedy’s. No one is saying Kennedy was a saint but it should be noted that 40 years ago lots of drunks killed people in accidents and got away with it. That was the driving reason for the creation of MADD in 1980. As for English only, 28 states already have the law and the last time it came up in Congress was 2007 and angered the Hispanic caucus at a time the Republicans were trying to recruit that voting bloc. They thought they were being singled out so overwhelmingly voted democrat in 2008. Now in life I have observed that people don’t like being called names like pinhead, Bela Pelosi, Ben Affliction, Banking Queen (Barney Frank), Communist News Agency (CNN), Femnazis, the Garbage Network MSNBC, Nikita Dean, Osama Obama and the swimmer, Right wing slang for Ted Kennedy.
So here’s a cross the aisle deal in memory of the swimmer, you suck up and take creepy Repugs like men and we’ll ignore all of the above…oh wait…we already ignore all that gibberish.
In response to another comment. See in context »He voted against the Iraq war, I can see why you call yourself uncertain.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bravo Brian! I congratulate you on your snarky and intellectually shallow contribution to the conversation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Kinsellagh,
Now that all of the rancor and name calling is finished, how about a reply to those of us who raised substantive questions? What precisely is the point of your posting? Please respond to my original post so you and others can see the context. Thank you.
In response to another comment. See in context »David,
I think it’s quite obvious the point of his post. I saw this nonsense earlier today but would not even dignify him with a response. He is just here to egg on the progressives who are in mourning for Teddy. He is a typical right wing hack that no more believes the shit he is peddling than you do.
Teddy Kennedy was the most successful Senator in US history to pass legislation that benefited the common man. I will not debate this, as the many bills he got passed into law since 1980 have been endlessly praised in the media in the past 48 hours.
Let it stand, John the Hypocrite. Jesus was for ‘The People’. All those rich elitist pricks whose ass your nose is buries in, like you, have no more chance to get into the kingdom of heaven, than you will to pass through the eye of a needle.
KISSES!
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Geiger (I hope I got that right),
Be all that as it may, the posting was not actually about Ted Kennedy but his older brother Jack.
I would still like hear what Mr Kinsellagh himself thinks his posting is about because honestly, I don’t know. At the end of the blog he asks “…can the Democratic Party and their handmaidens in the press finally bury the myth of Camelot and at long last move on?” He never explains what “myth” he means. Part of the posting seems to say that JFK was not really a great leader as is thought but the other part seems to say he was a great leader but he was not a liberal but a conservative. He does not provide any evidence for or against either hypothesis, unless he has some other hypothesis.
I would like to know, what this posting is about, what its point?
In response to another comment. See in context »Dr, David (I’m assuming your last name isn’t los angeles),
While i applaud the ‘team player spirit’ of your initial intellectual engagement of this dining room table (albeit, one with actual human legs and wiggling toes), i don’t think you actually read my post.
Being a PhD, you are probably familiar with Occam’s razor. Since you have pointed out the non-substance of this article yourself, can you not conclude that this **** is simply dancing on several Kennedy graves at once???
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Geiger,
I did read your posting. You may well be correct that Mr. Kinsellagh had a certain level malice toward the Kennedys as the standard bearers for traditional Democratic Liberalism. My point is that his motivations are irrelevant to the question at hand, if Mr. Kinsellah had said “2+2=4″, he may have been motivated by any number of emotions but he would nonetheless be factually correct. Since I had no idea what it was he was saying, I could not say whether he was factually correct or not, any ill-will that he may have had toward the Kennedy family not withstanding.
Incidentally, it is Dr. Kimbrough. I fear I had not thought my log-in name out very well but I did not know how things would work here.
In response to another comment. See in context »The point of his piece is to piss off liberals as we mourn the loss of Senator Kennedy, a sterling example of the Rush Limbaugh “school of journalism”. Intellectually empty as the pill bottles that litter Rush’s bedroom floor.
In response to another comment. See in context »Camelot represented far more than JFK’s strengths and weaknesses. It is American legend and legend is important in a nation’s heritage and culture. I doubt Davy Crockett actually wrestled that bear, but the story is sure a great one and an important part of our lore. A closer look at George Washington reveals some political warts. And Abraham Lincoln certainly was not beloved by all in his time.
It’s true that recent generations don’t share the memory of Camelot. But they will have their own. While you may not be a fan of Barack Obama, its a pretty good bet that he will stand as a great story for this and coming generations and I think that’s just fine. Hopefully, our country will always have great “stories” who, upon closer inspection, may not stand up to their legend. But that’s okay. It’s more about we we are, or who we want to be, that really matters.
It’s funny that you now laud candidate JFK’s experience and substance because at the time people on your side of the ideological fence were calling him a shallow pretty boy whose rich, powerful father bought him his prominence. To pretend to know where JFK would stand on today’s politics is of course, nonsense, especially for one someone with a right-wing agenda who’s only doing it to attack contemporary liberals. His brother Bobby, for instance, started even further to the right than JFK, but shortly before his assassination had emerged as a full-fledged liberal dreamboat. As for the alleged lib lurch leftward, the true lurching in our benighted political landscape has been to the extreme right. Today’s libs are but a pale shadow of the real King Arthur: FDR. Or maybe he’s St. George. But at least we can agree on the greatness of Andy Ihnatko.
Not to get off track and insulting, but from the picture it looks like Mr. Kinsellagh is of that generation born well after JFK and wondering what’s the fuss. Can’t fault him for that, but you sort of have to wonder, “What’s the fuss?”
In response to another comment. See in context »I wanted to say something substantive, but can’t get the traction. Who are the “many journalists” yearning for Camelot? Which Democrats are the ones pining for the past? Is “Welfare State” near “Kurdistan”? Who makes up that group of “us” so uninspired by President Obama?
The first three questions may be rhetorical, but I can answer the last one — young Republicans from Boston who love to tack against the winds of liberalism.
A surprise? No. I smell Reagan Baby Diapers. (Hey, just trying to get into the spirit of this things, just using the coin of this sick realm.)